Defendant 1 and two others

South Korean nationals

Law Firm Dasan, Attorney Cho Jong-hoon

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,00,00, and by a fine of KRW 2,000,000, respectively.

If the Defendants did not pay each of the above fines, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount of money equivalent to the above fines.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1 and 2 violated the Assembly and Demonstration Act on March 23, 2009, and the obstruction of the performance of official duties against Defendant 3 shall be acquitted.

Defendant 1 is a co-representative of the Gyeonggi-do Joint Council (hereinafter referred to as the “Joint Council”) to establish the Gyeonggi-do Ordinance on the Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of the Mobility Disadvantaged, Defendant 2 is the head of the △△△△△△△△△○ Center, who is the head of the above Joint Meeting, and Defendant 3 is the head of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△○ Center.

The Gyeonggi-do Council enacted the Gyeonggi-do Ordinance on the Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged from May 2008, and pre-announcement of the relevant Ordinance from February 17, 2009 to March 9, 2009, and the Joint Meeting after the pre-announcement of the Ordinance, the Joint Meeting did not fully reflect the requirements of the disabled in the above Ordinance, and it has been contrary to the Ordinance, such as holding the press conference and meetings on several occasions against them at the seat of the Gyeonggi-do Office and the Gyeonggi-do Council, etc.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

On March 23, 2009, the Defendants argued that the Construction and Transportation Standing Committee of the Gyeonggi-do Council would amend and abolish the above Ordinance, and conspired to hold an assembly to inform citizens of their arguments.

From around 15:00 on March 30, 200 to 15:40 on the same day, Defendant 1 and 2 held a press conference with approximately 25 members of the Joint Assembly in front of the Gyeonggi-do audience, with the content that “the right to move of persons with disabilities, i.e., the right to move,” and Defendant 1 used for the press conference at the time of the press conference, carried out a frat card and a broadcasting equipment to the head of the Suwon-si, which is located in the Simsan-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, using his own vehicle. Defendant 2 moved to the head of the above frat conference along with part of the members of the Joint Assembly participating in the press conference, and Defendant 3 prepared a scat, slick, etc. to be used at the conference with Nonindicted 3, an assistant for persons with disabilities, etc.

Defendant 2, from March 30, 200 to 17:40 the same day, from around 16:35 to around 17:40 of the same day, wheel chairs, including Non-Indicted 4, members of the joint conference, are occupied by five lanes among the eight-lanes from the 1st degree disabled persons with a disability, and 8-lanes, “Seoul-do shall guarantee the right to travel of the disabled,” and Do Council shall go on the seat rail, “the universal right to movement of the disabled,” and “the right to travel of the disabled,” which is used as “the right to travel of the disabled,” and “the right to travel of the disabled persons,” which is used as “the right to travel of the disabled persons,” “the right to travel of the disabled persons,” “the right to travel of the disabled persons,” “the right to travel of the disabled persons,” “the right to travel of the disabled persons,” and “the right to travel of the disabled persons and the right to travel of the disabled persons,” and “the disabled persons,” respectively.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to hold an assembly without reporting the assembly, and conspired with 20 disabled persons, such as Nonindicted 4, etc., and interfered with the traffic of the public.

2. The co-principal of the defendant 1 and 2;

At around 14:00 on April 1, 2009, the Defendants held 100 members of the Joint Assembly in front of the Gyeonggi-do Office, and continued to move the said road without complying with the request of the police officers belonging to the Suwon Police Station at around 17:00 on the grounds that the assembly time reported by the director of the Security Station of the Suwon Police Station at around 17:00 on the same day, when the police stations belonging to the Suwon Police Station opened a two-lane along the two-lanes of the parallel road in order to attract participants to the direction of the “lessless distance” in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si and 18-7 on the same day.

Therefore, even though the chief of security and transport division continuously issued the first dispersion order at around 17:10 on the same day, the second dispersion order at around 17:14, and the third dispersion order at around 17:18, participants including the Defendants did not immediately dissolve.

As a result, the Defendants did not comply with the dispersion order following the lapse of reported meeting hours in collusion with the participants in the assembly.

3. Defendant 1

▧▧▧▧▧▧▧▧▧▧회의 집행위원장 공소외 1은 2008. 12. 12.경 평택경찰서장에게 집회 일시는 2008. 12. 15.부터 2009. 1. 11.까지 매일 08:00~17:00, 집회 장소는 평택시청 서문 옆 인도, 집회 주최자는 공소외 1, 집회 주관자는 ▧▧▧▧▧▧▧▧▧▧회의, 시위 방법은 2열 종대 행진, 주최자/주관자/주최단체의 대표자/질서유지인/연사/참가예정단체의 명단에 당시 △△△ △△△△△△△연대의 상임대표이던 피고인 등 15명을 기재한 집회신고서를 제출하였다.

On December 22, 2008, from around 12:20 to 13:10 on the same day, the Defendant held an assembly, such as raising 20 members of the △△△△△△△△△△ Group in front of the Pyeongtaek-dong △△△△△△△△△△△△△, and holding free speech using hand microphones.

Although the Defendant was prohibited from doing any act clearly deviating from the scope of the reported place, method, etc. as the organizer of the above assembly, the head of Pyeongtaek-si Police Station information division, etc. during the above assembly, etc. held an assembly in front of the front door of the door door in the door door of Pyeongtaek-si Office, the place where the assembly is reported, is a tort. Thus, the Defendant’s moving to the front door of the door door in the door door of Pyeongtaek-si Office to the delivery of the door door in the door of Pyeongtaek-si office, and, if not complying with this, issued a warning that the result of the interview with the reception of the reception of the reception of the reception of the reception of the audience, and continued the assembly

Accordingly, the Defendant, the organizer of the above assembly, held an assembly beyond the clear scope of the reported place.

4. Defendant 2

A. Hosting an assembly on March 24, 2009

On March 24, 2009, from around 14:15 to 16:30 on the same day, 40 members of the Joint Assembly held assemblies such as “convening the passage of the ordinance on the ordinance of the mobility disadvantaged” in front of the present officers of the Gyeonggi-do Council, which is located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and held free speech by using hand microphones.

The defendant, as the chairperson of the Joint and Several Meeting, held the above assembly without reporting the assembly.

B. Organization of general traffic obstruction and non-reported assemblies on March 25, 2009

On March 25, 2009, from around 16:40 to 19:00 on March 25, 2009, the Defendant held an assembly, such as holding a 15 members of the Joint Meeting, by setting up (vehicle No. 2 omitted) car string car and Nonindicted 5, a member of the Joint Meeting, on his own (vehicle No. 1 omitted), in order to accomplish the requirements, such as subsidization for the expansion of low-floor buses in order to secure the right to travel of persons with disabilities, and holding (vehicle No. 2 omitted) car string car and a joint meeting of Nonindicted 5, a member of the Joint Meeting, with the 15 members of the Joint Meeting from around 18:00 to around 19:20 of the same day, and holding an assembly, such as holding North Korea in front of the Joint Meeting of Gyeonggi-do, and holding an assembly, such as raising an Ordinance for the destruction of the Ordinance.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the traffic of the land that is commonly used by the general public, and held an assembly without reporting the assembly as the organizer of the above assembly.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of each prosecutor's suspect against the Defendants

1. Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 6, 7, 8, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of the police interrogation protocol

1. Each police statement made against Nonindicted 25 and 26

1. Copy of the Non-Indicted 27’s statement

1. E-mail data;

1. Copy of each report for outdoor assembly;

1. Report on the current status of each information, each investigation report (Attachment of photographs), investigation report (Attachment of a notification), investigation report (to accompany a notification), and investigation report (to analyze the details of currency);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

◎ 피고인 1 : 각 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 제22조 제2항 , 제6조 제1항 , 형법 제30조 (각 미신고 집회 주최의 점), 형법 제185조 , 제30조 (일반교통방해의 점), 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 제24조 제5호 , 제20조 제2항 , 형법 제30조 (해산 명령 불응의 점), 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 제22조 제3항 , 제16조 제4항 제3호 (집회 주최자 준수사항 위반의 점)

◎ 피고인 2 : 각 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 제22조 제2항 , 제6조 제1항 , 형법 제30조 (각 미신고 집회 주최의 점), 각 형법 제185조 , 제30조 (각 일반교통방해의 점), 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 제24조 제5호 , 제20조 제2항 , 형법 제30조 (해산 명령 불응의 점)

◎ 피고인 3 : 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 제22조 제2항 , 제6조 제1항 , 형법 제30조 (미신고 집회 주최의 점), 형법 제185조 , 제30조 (일반교통방해의 점)

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant 1, 2

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendants, the organizer of the above assembly, are holding the assembly without filing a report of the assembly in collusion with the Defendants, by demanding ten members of the Joint and Several Meeting in front of the conference room of the Construction and Transportation Standing Committee of the Gyeonggi-do Council, which is located in Suwon-gu from March 23, 2009 to March 13:25, 2009, to hold an assembly, such as demanding the chairperson to hold a meeting with respect to the amendment of the bill; and (b) holding an assembly, such as raising a relief, such as “probing through the ordinances of the ordinances of the mobility disadvantaged persons.”

As prescribed by the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the term “open assembly” refers to an assembly at a place where there is no ceiling or all sides are not closed (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the above Act). It is apparent that the Defendants’ “in front of the conference room of the Gyeonggi-do Council Construction and Transportation Standing Committee”, which is a place where an assembly is held as stated in the facts charged, does not constitute an “outside an outdoor assembly” as stipulated in the above Act in a literal interpretation. In addition, considering that the nature of the place is managed and controlled by ordinary people, it is necessary to take prior measures to prevent infringement of public interest and maintain public safety and order, and it is difficult to view it as a place where it is required to report in advance to the chief of the competent police station. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Defendants’ above assembly organized by the Defendants constitutes an “outside assembly” requiring a prior report.

Thus, as stated in the above facts charged, since the Defendants’ assembly held before the conference room of the Gyeonggi-do Council Construction and Transportation Standing Committee constitutes an outdoor assembly requiring a prior report as prescribed by the Assembly and Demonstration Act, this part of the facts charged is not a crime, and thus, it shall be acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Defendant 3

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: at around 18:50 on December 23, 2008, at the same time, 10 public officials of Pyeongtaek-si and △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ were installed for the purpose of additional dispute over the activity auxiliary time for disabled persons, while 10 public officials of Pyeongtaek-si, including Nonindicted 2, etc. were installing a tent for the purpose of continuing installation despite warning that the above act was illegal and preventing tent installation, the above public officials of Pyeongtaek-si and △△△△△△△△△△△△△△, including the Defendant and the above △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, who want to remove the tent, and the public officials of the above public officials of the above public officials of the public officials of the public service, who interfere with their clothes, and who interfere with the above public officials of the public officials of the public service, and who interfere with their body in executing their duties on a single occasion."

First, in relation to whether the act of the public official of Pyeongtaek-si intended to remove the tent in which the defendant et al. tried to install as stated in the above facts charged constitutes legitimate performance of official duties, according to the above facts charged, the act of the public official of Pyeongtaek-si's removal of the above tent constitutes performance of official duties in relation to the protection of public roads, which can be deemed based on Article 65 (1) of the Road Act (On the other hand, during the 6th public trial date, the public prosecutor expressed his opinion that the act of removal of the above tent by the public official of Pyeongtaek-si was a measure to protect the office building of Pyeongtaek-si, but even according to the stated in the above facts charged itself, it is difficult to view the above act as a measure to

However, the provision of Article 65(1) of the Road Act recognizes special cases concerning administrative vicarious execution so that the procedure for giving notice of a warrant of vicarious execution may be omitted under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act. Thus, the necessary measure taken by the road management agency under the above Road Act is still an administrative vicarious execution under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and in principle, it does not purport to allow compulsory execution or recognize immediate administrative enforcement on other kinds of obligations that are not an alternative act. Furthermore, in order to carry out vicarious execution under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, the act of vicarious execution on the ground that there is a violation of the duty of vicarious execution under the above Act and subordinate statutes or by an administrative agency's order based on the Act and subordinate statutes, it is not permitted, and even if the act of vicarious execution is in violation of the duty of vicarious execution, it is not permitted, and unless there is an order issued by the administrative agency to bear the duty of vicarious performance under the above Act and subordinate statutes, it shall not be deemed that the act of vicarious execution is in violation of Article 208(1) of the Road Act and it does not interfere with the duty of vicarious act.

In this case, in order for the public officials of Pyeongtaek-si to carry out the vicarious execution of removal, etc. under Article 65 (1) of the Road Act as stated in the above facts charged, the act of removal by the public officials of Pyeongtaek-si is first ordered to take necessary measures based on Article 83 (1) 1 of the Road Act to convert the above act of omission into the duty of act of act as a substitute. The removal execution conducted without such order is ultimately conducted as the object of a simple act of omission that cannot be the object of vicarious execution (see the above Supreme Court decision, etc.) and it is not permitted (see the above Supreme Court decision, etc.). Thus, there is no evidence to recognize that the public officials of Pyeongtaek-si Office issued the order to the defendant, etc. by legitimate removal, etc. based on Article 83 (1) 1 of the Road Act. Accordingly, the act of removal by the public officials of Pyeongtaek-si office does not meet the legal requirements and methods concerning specific execution of duty

Thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is not established even if the defendant et al. used violence against the public officials of Pyeongtaek-si's act of removing the above tent. Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of the crime or it does not constitute a crime, and thus, it is decided not to be guilty pursuant to Article 325 of the

Judge Long-Term: